Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 98 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Was the conduct of the defendant, Robert Smith, that caused the death of the deceased committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result? 2. Is there a probability that the defendant, Robert Smith, would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society? 3. Was the conduct of the defendant, Robert Smith, in killing the deceased unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased? You are instructed that when you deliberate on the questions posed in the special issues, you are to consider all relevant mitigating circumstances, if any, supported by the evidence presented in both phases of the trial, whether presented by the State or the defendant. A mitigating circumstance may include, but is not limited to, any aspect of the Defendant’s character, background, record, emotional instability, intelligence or circumstances of the crime which you believe could make a death sentence inappropriate in this case. If you find that there are any mitigating circumstances in this case, you must decide how much weight they deserve, if any, and thereafter, give effect and consideration to them in assessing the defendant’s personal culpability at the time you answer the special issue. If you determine, when giving effect to the mitigating evidence, if any, that a life sentence, as reflected by a negative finding to the issue under consideration, rather than a death sentence, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Smith v. Cockrell

2. “[PROSECUTION]: Finally, let’s talk about parole for just a minute. Remember, I told you; I think the Judge has too, in a capital murder case with the guilty verdict, there is only two possible verdicts, either life or death, and now in the State of Texas if the person gets a life sentence for capital murder, the law says he has to serve forty calendar years before he becomes eligible for parole. That means, as the law is right now, and of course, parole laws are always subject to change, but as they are right now, that means you have got to serve forty calendar years, day for day; no hope of ever getting out at the end of that forty-year period; then you start becoming eligible for parole, but not before then. Now let me tell you the instruction that you get in this case as a juror. Judge Greene would instruct you if you find this man guilty of capital murder, that you are not to consider parole for any purpose, whatsoever. Just like the failure to testify, you just say, that doesn’t matter to me. Why, because, see, parole is not for you to decide. It’s a matter that is solely within the discretion of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the law is subject to change also. What a life sentence means today, well, it’s been different in the past; it may be different in the future. For that reason, here is what I tell jurors: When you see a life sentence mentioned in this case, just take it to mean life. That is it, day for day, rest of his life. Just think of it that way. In th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Turner v. State

3. “Where's the gun?” — leaving open the possibility that Andrew may have made that statement. 6 . Zeno testified that it was also possible that the sounds could have been produced by manufacturing processes at the Mobil plant. 7 . The record established that appellant, Andrew, and Williams were black. 8 . Even if Andrew were the primary actor, appellant could still be guilty as a party. See Texas Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2). 9 . That issue asks: "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.” Article 37.071, § 2(b)(1). 10 .Even if appellant were simply a drug user, however, his actions evinced a willingness to kill to enable his illegal activity to continue. 11 . Because no descriptive characteristics are given for "Gun” while appellant’s name, height, and weight are given after "Gun” is mentioned, a possible interpretation of the language in the warrant could be that appellant’s name and description were intended to describe the person known as "Gun.” However, parallel language in the warrant tends to discredit that interpretation: both "Gun” and appellant were introduced as "A black male known to affiant as ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Wilson v. State